Back up MCP config files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: mirror is refreshed every run, dated snapshots written only on content change, execution is synchronous, and a round-trip md5 verification is reported. It partially explains the destructiveHint=true by describing mirror overwrite, though it never warns about the risk of overwriting existing snapshots.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, each contributing distinct information (scope, mirror semantics, sync + verification, staging location). No filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how it behaves, and roughly what it reports. Minor gaps remain around failure handling and snapshot retention, but nothing that blocks correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `verify` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces it ('round-trip md5 check of the mirror') but adds no default, cost, or failure-mode detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (back up) and a precisely scoped resource (this server's own config files not restorable via release/git pull, naming .env, watch_rules.json, the Entware init script). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling backup_config (router config) and list_backups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope criterion ('files that no release or git pull restores') implies when this tool is appropriate, but it never explicitly names the alternative backup_config or states when to choose one over the other. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.